Speeding & S172 Court success today
Discussion
Plodbucket has a valid point - if everyone got away with law breaking on a technicality we'd soon be in a situation of anarchy.
However, this was a small victory for motorists against automated camera law enforcement, which has as many flaws as it does social benefits (and many of these flaws actively affect the generally law abiding middle classes, hence the backlash).
The fact is that technicalities mean loopholes or poor procedure, and loopholes get closed and procedures sometimes get tightened up. This means that in a few months, the 'non signed NIP' will be less likely to get you off. It should not be replied upon, nor should we ignore the fact that a crime has been committed. For every pistonheader that gets off speeding
, some rapist gets off because a victim is too frightened too testify. 
>> Edited by domster on Thursday 27th November 18:09
However, this was a small victory for motorists against automated camera law enforcement, which has as many flaws as it does social benefits (and many of these flaws actively affect the generally law abiding middle classes, hence the backlash).
The fact is that technicalities mean loopholes or poor procedure, and loopholes get closed and procedures sometimes get tightened up. This means that in a few months, the 'non signed NIP' will be less likely to get you off. It should not be replied upon, nor should we ignore the fact that a crime has been committed. For every pistonheader that gets off speeding
, some rapist gets off because a victim is too frightened too testify. >> Edited by domster on Thursday 27th November 18:09
domster said:
However, this was a small victory for motorists against automated camera law enforcement...
There's nothing to say this was a camera. A policeman didn't show to give evidence, which implies it was witnessed by him. The NIP may have been issued by the policeman.
If the copper had turned up to give witness evidence I think this would have been a completely different story.
Domster - just how can they close the loophole? Lets not forget under ECHR law you can't incriminate yourself.
As the law stands Idris Francis will eventually get to be heard at the ECHR and this whole sorry mess will be cleaned up. S172 will be ditched and it will be left to TrafPol again.
I'm not legally trained but I can't see any other way out
As the law stands Idris Francis will eventually get to be heard at the ECHR and this whole sorry mess will be cleaned up. S172 will be ditched and it will be left to TrafPol again.
I'm not legally trained but I can't see any other way out
plodbucket said:
There's nothing to say this was a camera. A policeman didn't show to give evidence, which implies it was witnessed by him. The NIP may have been issued by the policeman.
If the NIP was issued by the policeman, it would have been verbal and the signature issue is then entirely moot. Also, if he was pulled over at the time, there would be no S172 charge being tried, since it's irrefutable as to who was driving.
The copper in question here must have been operating a Talivan - all the evidence is there.
domster said:
Plodbucket has a valid point - if everyone got away with law breaking on a technicality we'd soon be in a situation of anarchy.
However, this was a small victory for motorists against automated camera law enforcement, which has as many flaws as it does social benefits (and many of these flaws actively affect the generally law abiding middle classes, hence the backlash).
The fact is that technicalities mean loopholes or poor procedure, and loopholes get closed and procedures sometimes get tightened up. This means that in a few months, the 'non signed NIP' will be less likely to get you off. It should not be replied upon, nor should we ignore the fact that a crime has been committed. For every pistonheader that gets off speeding
>> Edited by domster on Thursday 27th November 18:09
Agree entirely with this, particularly on plodbucket having a valid point, and yet I while agreeing that, I do not sympathise with him, and I presume its not necessary for me to elaborate on this forum while I feel like this.
The thing is, the myopic idiots who sit at various levels of power in this country can't see the damage they're doing. The rule of law depends upon the people having respect for and faith in the laws of the country in the way they are conceived, enacted and enforced. The lack of this that can be evidenced daily whether out and about or on these boards does not bode well for the future.
220 When you win a hand in Poker, you don't have to show your cards. If this man was guilty of speeding, that's between him and his own set of values, and since the ordinary motorists are now being "hunted" values are changing, I no longer feel any "social" guilt about speeding, because the system wants to
me over, so given the chance I'll the system first. Now if they removed the points penalty, removed plods from the cash/inforcement loop, let them regain the respect of the ordinary motorist again, and then forced the scamera partnerships to run their own show via the courts system and come out with an honest statement that scameras are all about money,then they could make fines anything up to 5x the present level,whatever, at least we would know what to expect.
If you speed you pay, but they must prove the case beyond doubt, and not twist existing law to suit the requirements of the money grabbers, or keep the "speed kills" numpties happy. If they used the money for driver training programs, and road safety issues, like teaching parents that kids wandering around unsupervised may be at risk!!!! doh!! I for one would be quite happy.
Now, please don't give me any of that, "the rich can speed and the poor can't", bollocks, that's life, and if a rich man wants to add £20k in fines to the coffers, more fool him. We need to attack the dual points/fines system, one or the other, not both, as it compromises any real fairness, and makes people look for any way to fight it. Nobody wants to give money away, it's too bloody hard to earn in the first place, big fines will work,
Money talks,
small rant over.
AlexH said:
...
The thing is, the myopic idiots who sit at various levels of power in this country can't see the damage they're doing. The rule of law depends upon the people having respect for and faith in the laws of the country in the way they are conceived, enacted and enforced. The lack of this that can be evidenced daily whether out and about or on these boards does not bode well for the future.
"If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." -- Winston Churchill
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way
around the laws." -- Plato
'Nuf said! - Streaky
Government can govern, and police can police only with the consent of the people.
If I have to obeey the letter of the law, then I'm totally happy to do that, as long as the authorities also obey the letter from their side.
When they can't either due to incompetence or deliberate obtuseness then they deserve all they get.
And quite honestly I can't believe I actually said that seeing as I'm of the old school ie "hands up mode"
Well done squire! Bit embarrassing if the photo had been a cracker though, bet the bottle was going a bit?
If I have to obeey the letter of the law, then I'm totally happy to do that, as long as the authorities also obey the letter from their side.
When they can't either due to incompetence or deliberate obtuseness then they deserve all they get.
And quite honestly I can't believe I actually said that seeing as I'm of the old school ie "hands up mode"
Well done squire! Bit embarrassing if the photo had been a cracker though, bet the bottle was going a bit?
plodbucket said:
OK, so I'll put it a different way. The fella above got away with doing 57 in a 30 because the CPS bungled the case. Can anybody see the problem here?
No, there was no evidence - a bluring photo of the rear of the car. What I do see is BiB desperate to intimidate someone into taking the rap and a CPS lawyor who appears to know nothing about the law.
the problem here is I am working my guts out to pay for the moroons in these organisations.
>> All.
Just a note of clarifaication; I am sorry if I did not make it clear in my original post. I was not the accused in this case. However, the post appeared genuine and I thought it worthy of a wider audience, particularly, as I said, as there has been quite a bit of negative news on the subject recently, and to give heart to thoses already 'in the system'.
>>plodbucket
As one who obviously believes that motorists, alone, should be the subject of automatic convictions without any evidence, perhaps you can expalian why the CPS usually always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the evidence, particularly where video evidence is involved (although it appeared not to be in this case)?
The inescapable conclusion is that in the majority of cases it does not show what they say it shows; why else would they be so determined to suppress it, particularly, as in this case, it may result in a case being lost?
Just a note of clarifaication; I am sorry if I did not make it clear in my original post. I was not the accused in this case. However, the post appeared genuine and I thought it worthy of a wider audience, particularly, as I said, as there has been quite a bit of negative news on the subject recently, and to give heart to thoses already 'in the system'.
>>plodbucket
As one who obviously believes that motorists, alone, should be the subject of automatic convictions without any evidence, perhaps you can expalian why the CPS usually always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the evidence, particularly where video evidence is involved (although it appeared not to be in this case)?
The inescapable conclusion is that in the majority of cases it does not show what they say it shows; why else would they be so determined to suppress it, particularly, as in this case, it may result in a case being lost?
Just a point. He didn't win the case, the CPS lost it. If he'd have been served the evidence and given time to prepare the case, he would have been stuffed.
Unfortunately these are the same sort of tricks that are used continually by rapists, murderers, drug smugglers, illegal immigrants, drink drivers (endless list).
As soon as a minor procedural chink appears ANYWHERE, you've as good as won, because normal magistrates are not well versed enough in law to handle case of this nature imho. A stipe would have had none of it.
Although I applaud the mans intelligence and research and admit to get off a speeding ticket is a very minor thing (and a small victory to those who are unable to spot cameras), it just reiterates to me that the legal system needs tightening up before it comes apart at the seams.
If you knew who was walking among you right now, because of a technicality, your toes would curl...maybe I should ignore the big picture?
Unfortunately these are the same sort of tricks that are used continually by rapists, murderers, drug smugglers, illegal immigrants, drink drivers (endless list).
As soon as a minor procedural chink appears ANYWHERE, you've as good as won, because normal magistrates are not well versed enough in law to handle case of this nature imho. A stipe would have had none of it.
Although I applaud the mans intelligence and research and admit to get off a speeding ticket is a very minor thing (and a small victory to those who are unable to spot cameras
), it just reiterates to me that the legal system needs tightening up before it comes apart at the seams. If you knew who was walking among you right now, because of a technicality, your toes would curl...maybe I should ignore the big picture?
madant69 said:
He didn't win the case, the CPS lost it. If he'd have been served the evidence and given time to prepare the case, he would have been stuffed.
Accused said:
The Clerk pointed out that there was no evidence for the speeding as I had not signed the form and I could not be identified from the Photographs.
IMHO, that was the point in this case (speeding), because there is no comment about whether they decided whether the other evidence was admissable or not, or whether an adjournment would be allowed or not. Therefore, IMO, it was not about the evidence not being served.
Perhaps you can answer the question I posed to plodbucket, i.e. "perhaps you can explain why the CPS usually always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the evidence, particularly where video evidence is involved (although it appeared not to be in this case)?
The inescapable conclusion is that in the majority of cases it does not show what they say it shows; why else would they be so determined to suppress it, particularly, as it (the suppression) may result in a case being lost?"
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 28th November 09:05
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff